Echogenicity Head Office

Updated 7 November 2019

Echogenicity is operated by Echogenicity Limited and provides an echocardiogram service for NHS funded adult patients referred by GP practices in Cornwall. The service registered with the CQC in 2012 as Echogenicity Limited.

The service has a registered manager in post who is also a director of the company.

Updated 7 November 2019

Echogenicity is operated by Echogenicity Limited. The service provides echocardiograms (this is a painless ultrasound scan of the heart. It takes approximately 30 to 40 minutes to perform and is used as a diagnostic test) to adult patients referred by the NHS across 11 clinics in Cornwall. The clinics are held in GP surgeries or community hospitals in Bude, Bodmin, Newquay, Helston, St Austell, Roche, Falmouth, Truro, Pool, Redruth and Portscatho. During this inspection we visited clinics at Pool and St Austell.

The registered premises of Echogenicity were not visited during this inspection as the registered manager stated there were renovation works ongoing. Patients did not visit the registered premises for any part of their care and treatment. When the office was functionable one administrator worked from this base and clinicians only visited on rare occasions to collect or drop off equipment or supplies.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 5 and 6 September 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

Our rating of this hospital/service stayed the same. We rated it as Good overall.

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and provided detailed scan reports. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. The service was available five days a week. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for their diagnostic test.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• Training was not provided to staff in the safeguarding of children. While staff do not provide a service to children they may accompany adult carers to their appointments.
• It was not clear that patients were provided with information on how to make a complaint should they wish to do so.
• Full recruitment records demonstrating a robust recruitment process had been followed for each member of staff was not maintained.
• Staff did not have the opportunity to meet to share information and learning.

Dr Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Updated 7 November 2019

We rated the service as good overall with good ratings for safe,  caring, responsive and well led. We do not rate the effective domain for diagnostic imaging services.  However, we found four areas which the provider should address.​